items on this scale are things such as i find contradicting other stimulating. [laughter] it makes me angry when another person held up as a model for me

to follow. and this is my favorite, was was sent in a spray of the day, usually think, that's exactly what i'm going to do. last max libertarians to have emotional reactions in people infringe on their liberty are somehow manipulate them to go a certain way. the rear up and say no, don't tummy to do that. very, very different from social conservatives. third, how do libertarians relate to others? is a libertarians are more cerebral and less emotional, you might end this will impact the relationship and indeed it does. ayn rand says to say i love you, one must first know how to say hi. she took a rather dim view of the sappy portrayals of romantic passionate love to my list for you, along for you. so we hypothesize libertarians will be more individualistic and must connect you to other people than either liberals or conservatives and that's what we find. the major measure of personality

widely used is called the big five. it measures to open to experience. you like the ideas? to come out to your intellectual talks? you're probably high to an experienced the libertarians and liberals are really come up really high. this is how to counter other so often. they like to go to the same sorts of things. conservatives are low. but now, let's look at the three traits that have really associated with sociability. on a black pcb data for extroversion. how much do just that and with a bow? by being of people. liberals and conservatives are identical. the more inch averted, not as oriented towards socializing. the second set is how nice, warm, friendly, how easy is it to get along with you? liberals and conservatives are equal, libertarians are low. conscientiousness. how michiko the pull of obligation because you need to do things for people? something needs to be done your

conservatives are the highest, but they're pretty close to liberals. some on this major personality, just as libertarians are really curious, open-minded people, but they're not that focused on other people. they want to learn, but they're not that focused on getting along with others. one lives in a mosh closeout. this is a little surprising to me. questions about how much should one come in tender feelings for your romantic partner on the left, for your family, for your friends are for people in general? and what we find is that conservatives score the highest of the three groups on family. that's not surprising. nation unseemly. liberal score the highest on generic other pre-liberals feel less compassion and love for just general others. actually commit a crime to feel more than for their own family. that's kind of weird. liberals tend to be focused. libertarian fellow on every

single one. libertarians to self-report claim to love their parents less than do liberals conservatives. so, in summary, libertarian studies that pretty more than either liberals or conservatives. libertarians rely upon reason more and emotionless and either liberals or conservatives. they're more individualistic and less connected than either liberals or conservatives. the implications, this is my last fight, that libertarians and conservatives are a very couple indeed. in our data actually, libertarians are little more similar to liberals than conservatives. but, they are canadian league with conservatives nowadays in the tea party because they have a common enemy. they are united by a devotion to economic liberty and in particular, in opposition to the welfare state for very different reasons i believe. libertarians hate the welfare state because it is counseling for genome on persons liberty to give positive liberty or hope to

another group your conservatives simply take the welfare state because they think it's sad self-reliance, and moral fiber, devotion to god, family, almost in the spirit the reason for having the welfare state is different. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. so that's it. thank you. [applause] >> is hard not to sit here and here that and think all you people out here in this building, that's about you. testify the adequacy. part 2 public renowned individual today is jonathan rauch, who among other things lament national headliner award for magazine columns. he suggests color at the brookings institution and a contributing editor at national journal in the atlantic it is

written several, including why it's good for, straights in america, published by times books. i must say i wonder how many beautified the experience is coming across the person you took to be fairly conservative culturally and otherwise say us wanted to make coming you know, i am for gay marriage for the reason john puts out on this book, gay marriage. her people's minds don't often change ever march of this particular book has had a surprising effect on people that i've come across. he's also written other books include another book on the revised version of an earlier book about why washington has software can also inquisitors of the new attacks and for many others, you also know him from his 12 year position as a writer of the column social studies and the national journal, which i

look over to nice rating of a clearly in the atlantic among other places and he's written for every major publication you can think of. john was born and raised in phoenix, arizona and graduated in 1982 from yale university. please welcome john rauch. [applause] >> thank you very much, john. i come to these things for the introduction. i thank you all, thanks especially to david for the marvelous presentation. my job is to amplify just a little bit from a slightly different point of view. i have the privilege of being both a journalist and scholar at the brookings institution and studies, wherein the tea party murch, what is heavily debated issues, so what is this phenomenon? are these republicans pretending not to be, or are they something new? a genuinely independent movement.

the other axis of that debate. are they hard right conservatives? at a basically sir palin and so forth, or the something something accommodation, each in a grassroots libertarian movement in which isn't something we've seen much of in america. david kirby performs a great service by shattering the myth of the monolithic tea party. if i have to summarize our two presentations for which of course is my job as a channel list, beat david saying party is not monolithic and tea partiers are not lovable. what david finds that i think makes this paper a landmark in breakthrough and well worth downloading and reading is he finally puts pieces together so you can see a lot of it in one place. this problem was that a wise men in element. once that it's a snake and so

forth. well, it's both. david mayle says by finding that the tea party movement is about social conservatives and libertarians with the energy in this movement, waxing and waning from the libertarian side, but a lot of that coming especially from the libertarian side. his finding squirted my own in 2010, i decided that because i could actually investigated protecting the tea parties and looking on a lot of data out so well a lot of human spirit somewhere to amplify by showing what i found someone which is awfully relevant. instead of talking about ideology, and like to talk brand and style because i think that is where the distinctive features lie. this is a dimension that is not than captured. there is a sense for the tea party movement is distinctive

from ordinary libertarians and distinctive from ordinary conservatives, which makes it stand out in politics and estimated in some ways the distinctive and potent for spirit to show you what that is, about to begin with a couple of slideshow anywhere i believe the tea party movement originates. this is pew data, a very basic chart that shows the american electorate by possession. there is a libertarian category, but here their destiny to be. sec categories are pretty stable over the years, but in 2007 in 2008 if you're looking carefully, something interesting starts to happen, which continues in 2009 becomes quite pronounced, a drift of conservatives out of the republican camp and into the independent camp. this is a phenomenon i think a is branding. people who are conservatives, but by rejecting conservative label and they are thinking of

themselves increasingly as independent. another way to look at this brenda kline, which perhaps come out even more clearly as if you simply look at party affiliation for americans as a whole. again, you see, the republicans in a gradual period of decline in george w. bush second term and republican lands really gaining market share very rapidly by the standards that you see happening to test may come in 2009 in 2010 is a very large increases. the public domain independents who don't say they're republicans, building republicans in terms of adding behaviors, political preferences and so on. so for some reason, you see this big batch of people no longer say they're republican. they're embracing independent label. well, maybe you say so what,

this is just labeling. what are these people lakeway here's a few questions. there's a lot far this came from, but i'll give you a couple. this is interesting and it will surprise you if you can listen to david kirby. they move both republicans and republican miners, the group by causing deep branded republicans shift very sharply to the right between 1997 on economic issues. look at those two red lines. the bright red is republican, the later read as independent. government is a major threat to our personal rights and freedoms. you see this huge rightward shift. democratics leaner shift a little bit to the liberal side. clearly the giant movement over

this. it's a very sharp rightward movement among republicans and republican leaders. in terms of the rate of change can come independent lands are swinging harder than republicans. iraq's attorney write faster and in many cases, government is a threat to our freedom. they are winding up to the right. but these are not coincidently libertarian questions. government programs should be cut back his same pattern, hard rayburn swing. independently nurse come republican miners cannot out to the right. if i show you comparable sizes social issues, the pattern that very different. you don't see republican miners to the right of republicans. what is emerging here is a group of political people who are conservative on economic issues if anything to the right to have shifted very far to the right

and who do not bring themselves as republicans feared i would assert that if you were a good little analysts and you are locked in a room and you can read headlines for the last two years, a cookbook at for polling data, you would see this and you would say, there must be something out there happening or if not something like it for what's going on at political base. are they just more of the same, republicans intractable shoe. consider libertarian republicans interact through project but are otherwise the same thing. they still make it. they basically republicans that turn out to not be necessarily. i disagree with them, but to find out why you have to look at style as well as substance and actually to jonathan haidt

circum- personality. how you believe is important if not even more important. let me give you three important dimensions on which i think tea partiers are collectively different. first, compromise. this is a good basic question on attitudes towards compromise. you admire leaders to stick to their position on a compromise at the actual question is little more complicated than not, but that is basically it. 2010 data hasn't changed very much, though i haven't been able to find a replication of this question unfortunately. democrats favor compromise by a quite substantial margin. independents are more in the sense. i don't show them here, but tend to favor compromise. republicans very different. they do not like compromise, but now look at tea parties. this is remarkable. that's as bad as strong as you

can get to something that looks like a firm consensus. they do not like compromise and they are quite distinct in republicans in the extent to which that is true. and indeed, we know they will punish the politicians, which brings us to dimension number two. they will publish republicans to compromise. again, pew data, these are all data on attitudes towards republican leaders, towards incumbents, how much you have new faces in government. they'll affect willingness to vote for politicians out of loyalty, whether to the party or because the politician has been there for a while and to vote on the other hand i'm wanting the incumbent ousted. this data is quite striking to me. in terms of disapproval of republican leaders, republican

miners, the energy driver, the motor behind the tea party look more like democrats and a few republicans. that's remarkable. they are simply not loyal republicans. do they want their incumbent ousted? less party loyalty among this group by fire than any other category. they are rebels and they do not like incumbents. do they want new faces and governments? same story. this gives these people a very different flavor in my opinion from partisan republicans. the definition as this is someone who will vote for you even when they think you're wrong. that's your base, the classic definition. these guys are saying, at least that's what they were saying in 2010. and that makes for a very different political dynamic since they're not live

republicans and since they don't like compromise. if you're republican and county are scared of these people. you cannot make a deal and taxes are done without warranty skies are going to punish you and they will. that brings us to the third dimension on which they different from a shakeout at h.r., but which david has illustrated admirably, which is they've made a collective strategic decision to prioritize spending. they may disagree on other things, but they don't disagree on spending and they've made, and i would argue a strategic decision. when i talked to tea party leaders, is that this is a strategy. republican leaders especially have these social issues like abortion and gay marriage is a distraction. and while they make government bigger. and guess what? were not falling for that anymore. in my opinion, the analysis of a republicans were doing was

largely right and in fact they are not following any more. not falling for it anymore. so in jonathan haidt's terms, what we have here is not a movement made of people who agree with one another or who have only one flavor ideologically, but who have come together in a one flavor movement, who are very independent in their coding and not meant, not particularly partisan and quite hostile to the establishment. this gives them a whole lot of cogency in the political process and they will continue in my opinion to have quite a good deal of potency as long as they can their focus, narrowness, determination and independence. those things are all very, very hard to sustain. it's hard to see the focus of your membership is as divided as tea partiers fundamentally i went there are lots of babies being murdered in america

appeared is hard to maintain the discipline and the republicans are working as hard as they possibly can to bring in the spokes and turn into loyal members of the republican base. very hard to stay outside the republican machine forever because republicans have a lot of money, a lot of political power, a lot of institutional clout in things like primary voting rolls a lot of ways that make tea partiers that difficult in a lot of ways quite attractive to become a member of the group i'm especially if they win the elections. i would say the tea party movement is a 22 to five year movement terms of its maximum potency releases such as many do. i don't remember having seen anything quite like this before. occupy wall street, move on.org. they have similarities, but i've never seen anything with quite this combination of independence and ideologically disciplines.

the tea partiers will be around. i will say however that it is not a conventional group for the movement. [applause] >> are for a speech or speaker today will be emily mcclintock ekins for the foundation where she leads a group a and public research project. endless research focuses primarily on american politics from including public opinion from the survey methodology and political economy. individuals at their own economic future shape their political behavior and attitudes towards government. the fox news, fox business, cnbc and research has appeared in a number of leading national publications and i'm also proud to say she's a part-time college at the cato institute.

emily. [applause] >> thank you, john for that gracious introduction. so today i would like to make two points. we've made lots of different points today and there's two issues that i've found have been overlooked by academics, journalists and political opponents alike and i think this is a great time to set the record straight. as part of my dissertation research, i got in my car, drove around the country and interviewed local level tea party leaders and local diners and restaurants we sat down. i went to virginia, pennsylvania, kentucky, utah, california and do a surprising how similar the worldviews of these tea partiers were and yet

so distinct from my academic colleagues at ucla where i've been getting a phd. for the first one i'd like to make, one thing that sets the tea party apart from many others if they have a very traditional review. so essentially, they have this view america's land of opportunity and that all people regardless of backgrounds can succeed. now this is not to say, but they have this even more so and this is how the answer poll questions and how they help explain a lot of there there policy positions that other people have a hard time understanding. the scope of this. so these are some signs i took at a washington d.c. tea party protest here by the capital.

you often see signs like this. don't spread my wealth. spread my work ethic. stop punishing and rewarding failure. this is all part of a common thing. and for this to make sense, i think we should go for some polling data. i'm going to show you some polling numbers that i've conducted with the recent rupaul that i directed the foundation. why actually had an opportunity to ask americans in general, but also tea partiers about how they perceive the fairness about opportunities in america. you actually see they are distinct who do not identify with the tea party. receive 70% of tea party supporters think that all americans to succeed, compared to a majority, but significantly less. 65% of non-supporters.

income inequality in the system as part of the economic system. is this an acceptable part from or is this a problem? 68% of tea partiers say that it's an acceptable part compared to a little less than half of everybody else. we asked about given this income inequality that does exist is that the responsibility of government to income differences are not. here we see a very huge difference in the 80% tea partiers. it is not the role of government. now this makes sense that there are other assumptions that if this is the land of equal opportunities for all people regardless of background. the reasons why they might also say that it's not the responsibility of government to redistribute wealth. this is the most striking difference. we asked about those in this

country who are poor. how good of a chance today have for facing poverty? this is a striking difference. 67% of tea partiers think that these individuals have a very good chance compared to 42% of non-tea party supporters. in fact, 60% of them think they have very little chance. i wanted to tell them a little deeper into the data and look at different groups. tea partiers are not republicans. tea party supporters, to see that almost everyone, republicans can libertarians, democrats and others do not think that the poor are having a very good chance of escaping poverty, bertie partiers think they do. one of the reasons they may feel this way as we asked essentially about the question and zero

psalm. but the economy can both grow enough for everyone or is it being tasteless or anybody else? two thirds of tea partiers think that love can grow enough for everyone. less than half of everybody else agrees. instead, a majority but one also may think one person gets wealthy and that necessarily means that someone else has gotten poorer. most americans agree it's the most important traits in order to achieve success rather than help from other people. but you still see a difference between tea partiers. i batted inhere tea party at today's and this is an entrance poll that david and i cannot did in 2010. 97%, this is a margin error, essentially everybody there is hard work.

it's most important for determining success. for non-tea party supporters, although still is overwhelming. there's still a sizable percentage that luck and other people is ultimately what matters most. in some, i should probably leave it there. this shows you that the tea party members have a very unique view about upward economic mobility. when i did my interviews on a common theme kept coming up. moors were being used. i don't know exactly what explains it, the people as they, emily, what i'm worried about mallas is losing the thing that makes america great. i said okay, in your opinion what makes america great? it was a america is the place

where people say it can be whatever you want to be. they often would caveat that the point that is no degree of success. a lot of them have started and have failed. but they also said what it does mean is that the guarantee of opportunity to try to do succeed and perhaps fail. in this ideology i did not even a counter with the groups i've had studied in my own professional research. understanding this about the tea party hopes and a lot of other positions, especially there's strong, economic conservatives and disco conservatives on. if you have a view that things are generally fair, that we work on a meritocracy, but hard work pays off, then income redistribution may seem less necessary or even justified. the second point i'd like to make today is about medicare. i hear this constantly with my research as a tea party with

them. people often bring up signs that look something like this. kaser mckey first documented this atrocity party rallies as she attended the word woman had a sign that said future government hands out by medicare. this has led to a thesis, and emerging thesis in the academic world that suggest that the tea party house government, but only big government programs that benefit and an inoffensive selfishness, batter instead of wanting big government programs for all, it's just a big government programs for them personally. but this didn't seem to comport with what i was observing in my interviews to the tea party and also just looking at the polling data itself. so what the poll, we decided to delve a little bit deeper into this issue to understand how tea

partiers can perceive and how did they conceive of entitlement programs and united states? we first asked about responsibility. it was primarily responsible for saving for retirement? 72% of tea partiers that that individual should be primarily responsible for saving for retirement compared to 6% so the majority and 56% of non-tea party supporters. we also asked about a day care, slightly less, but still 59% of tea partiers also so individuals primarily responsible for paying for health insurance when they retired. we talked about opting out of entitlement programs in social security and overwhelmingly and almost 31st of the tea party and this is fine. less than half of everybody else agrees. the same is true of medicare. so this led me to wonder, what

explains the polling out there at the show's tea partiers are unwilling to cut social security and medicare in order to balance the budget. everybody knows that the main drivers of our future in the future budget deficit will be the result of our entitlement programs unless we change them. by winnebago movement that says they are against big government spending. why would they oppose reducing government spending for social security and medicare. so we decided to rest the question like everybody else asks, which should remind you of your current or future social security benefits reduced as part of a plan to balance the federal budget or an sure social security remains in place for future retirees. you see a majority of tea partiers say no. 62% as do non-tea partiers. one thing that struck me in the

interview and also my other researchers at tea partiers to talk about medicare and social security at the door savings account. they save this money. they sacrificed money today, delayed consumption that they could spend today, but instead saved in a government program, a government savings account if you will. so we sat, what would you be doing to expect reductions in their benefits if you are still guaranteed the amount of money you contributed to the system. you see the responses slipped. most americans and tea partiers say 65% say yes, they would date willing to expect there is social security benefits if they were guaranteed to at least get their money back. we asked the same thing about medicare. and when you promise secured a

promise they would still get the money they put they put in tennessee 67% would be open to reforming medicare, even if that meant cuts as fun as they get their money back. we asked this in august 2011 poll. we decide to revisit those last month in a september poll and they went straight for it. would she be willing to accept cats in your current or future medicare benefits at least equal to the amount of fatty tissue and your employers contribute and here we find three quarters of tea partiers say yes. but we were saying were tea partiers were reluctant to cut medicare spending. but they were thinking as they were reluctant to have their own savings taken away rather than been thinking of it as a redistributive program in which they wanted to ensure they also received those redistributive payment. so in sum, all those points, are

destroying it, these are very important points to make in the polling data can help clarify for the tea party stands for now it is different from those who do not identify with the tea party, mainly with upward economic mobility and continues to be so, which probably explains their strong commitment to fiscal conservatives and then also they are open to entitlement reform, although we may have previously not so. searching in the rematch and i think rematch and i think rematch and i think to time over two questions. [applause] >> indeed we will. the question-and-answer session against now. let me go over some ground rules. by my calling you cannot raise your hand about calling you. please read until the microphone device in speaking to a clearly.

we need the microphone, so does everyone can hear you on the sound system and all those watching at home and online. i think termite at home viewers that you can submit panelists via twitter, using the hash tag teepee routes. so let's go to the question. gentleman down front here. [laughter] >> he always tries to upstage me. my question is probably to all for, but it was triggered when mr. kirby's respond remark because he appeared to be defining libertarians and fiscally conservative and socially economically and

fiscally -- >> fiscally liberal. >> i find this kind of undermines the libertarians are. to me, libertarians are essentially saying, we don't want government coercion. you can have whatever kind of personal belief you want. you can agree to live on -- you can be someone who likes to live on a commune, but if you say i'm not going to force other people, that make pseudo-libertarian. and my point is we're really putting everyone on the same continuum by describing it this way. libertarians are on the same continuum as conservative liberals, which is probably a reason why they are not identified as a distinctive group by a lot of people. what do you think about this

criticism? >> i give flavor to the libertarians are worried about coercion. but i think a socially liberal part may be hanging you out. the questions are used to defend libertarians have socially liberal are questions i, do you believe the government should promote traditional values or no particular set of values? and libertarians take no particular set of valid use. so i actually think that is consistent with what you're describing. socially liberal might be misconstrued like social programs. they just don't want government passing around their social space. so it's those two things come economic conservatives and an government out of my personal life that i find libertarians broadly construed in our data. >> the gentleman asked. i don't want to start any

arguments here. >> my name is osborne. when you say fiscally responsible, i'm a little bit bothered because i think there's a difference of the fiscal responsibility when you keep spending and taxes and fiscal responsibility that occurs, where you do spend a lot of money, but she raise taxes. i mean, i think some of these european countries and maybe i'm wrong about this, but in italy, basically they do have high taxes and they hope will offset the effects of high spending. but to the extent that i'm a libertarian, i'm very bothered by the idea that it's really responsible and steal money from people in order to pay for it. >> that's a question for whoever wants to answer appeared

>> note and truman described the measure taxation at the level of spending because today will pay for future taxes tomorrow and i think a lot of cheap produce public crude characterization that it's not right to pass on taxes. if you don't have spending and keep tax as though are not and that might be consistent with the moral intuitions about economic mobility are seeing. >> yes, we also see in the data that tea partiers even more than other groups are sensitive to the issue of government spending because they see this future taxation. some people disagree with this. they don't think that deficit spending signals to people that there'll be future taxes coming down the line. that tea partiers do seem to see the mayor primarily found in part of the income distribution that research shows are very sensitive to tax increases

because they feel it differently. it's a little harder for them to pay extra taxes than it is for mr. bassett. but they are actually paying more. they're getting less than their pain and in terms of redistribution and that's where tea partiers fall generally speaking. so that is one reason why they're so especially especially averse to government pending. >> a former chairman of the cato institute died recently. marvelous man named film is scanned and committed research is other people have done and found others would certainly dispute this, but the evidence shows that people who want to cut taxes all the time our big government's best friend because i discounted the apparent price of government when you post something on sale, people demand more of it. the best way to restrain us to force a balanced budget, which means make people pay for it and that means raise taxes than necessary as a way to restrain spending in the record shows this is what works better in the

u.s. however, having put the contentious idea in the table for all you people do care to shed, the reason i bring it out as i couldn't find polling data, but when i talk to tea party people, i would ask them point blank, so what if you could get very large reductions in spending than the prices that were so modest increase in taxes. would you take that question does not get deficits and government as a result. and they all said no. they were more allergic to raising taxes than they were to have in the government grow, which i thought was surprising. he saw that same dynamic by the way the republican primary debate. >> i think that's a great point you actually have seen polling data, but my interviews also cannot they typically will be shown as one person in particular said he actually would favor some sort of compromise there if it were guaranteed that the spending

decreases would actually go into effect and typically at the reluctance to any kind of tax increase at all was because experience has suggested to them that tax increase is due in go into effect and spending increases its of strange accounting tricks happened and they don't seem to materialize. it would be interesting if you're somehow able to pose the question work is credible, that you credibly actually cut spending, whether or not tea partiers of them favors and tax increases they think would probably be somewhat mixed. >> gentleman in the third row from the frontier. right here. we further make plays. >> hae cummins is a question to all of you. could you identify yourself? >> will martin darrell, aarp. i have a question because i know a lot of friends, not going to speak to my own beliefs, but a lot of my friends really jumped on the von paul revolution and

monegan in a really jumped on largely because those a lot of the civil liberties and antiwar rhetoric as opposed to some of the more tax related issues because that irish we are really getting tax either way. and i was just wondering if that has a large input in your definition of what a libertarian is and what that goes into as far as whether those issues, things such as the featured actor indefinite detention, if those are issues they are worried about the libertarians are tea partiers. >> well, to answer your question, we haven't used issue questions like the featured actor to find libertarians. the reason we do possess or to show johnson's think that this

moral background questions are probably more influential in the way people think the knowledge of the issues. a lot of people don't do much about the issue, so it can be confusing if you use those questions. but if use background with questions come you find libertarians do care more about civil liberties and tea civil liberties antiparty libertarians included than conservatives. there's one question about closing guantánamo bay in new surprising how many libertarian tea partiers willing to accept that versus conservatives who are much whirling to keep it open. it gives you an example of an issue that kind of falls out from the libertarian reasoning. it's sort of surprising. >> gentleman right here, the one inside. second from the left want it to the other person. >> jim harper with the cato institute. mostly for emily, but i'd be happy to hear anyone's observations. what i debate with my friends on the left about regulation, they

often talk using a mental model but it is time we elect the right people and at this time the regulators do it right, will actually come up with something good and i can sleep in going after that for 40 years now and it hasn't happened. what i recognized as an aspirational model they used to bring the 18th. and i wonder if you see a lot of that in answers of some of your questions is the first escaping poverty and been anything you want to be. do you think that they think literally that people can escape poverty and statistically someone is likely to move up in the united states? already be an aspirational and answer those questions? what is the kind of thinking you are saying about the tea parties? >> , crunchy last that because it gives me an opportunity to clarify. who doesn't like the word opportunity and what politician doesn't want to advocate for opportunity? but how opportunity is operationalized is different for

different people. so for instance, one person if we were to think of starting up on the same platform. so that somewhat equalize access to health and education started at roughly the same place that we have any opportunity to succeed. these folks say this is in about equal results. it's about starting equally. the tea partiers are talking about that. they are talking about if you were to imagine a ladder. they are thinking about the latter upward economic mobility. it's not about 40 start. it's about what the latter is late for every person. so they want the ladder of opportunity to be equal to all people, which means equality before the law, people are treated equally. and typically come equalizing the platform where you begin an equal latter for one don't tend to go while.

that streak at some of the conflict. so tea partiers care a lot about how that ladder works for people. most of them would not be that someone in poverty without necessarily become extraordinarily wealthy. they would think they could get to a point where they're not struggling perhaps. and they have the opportunity to try what matters most and that some basic expectation that you may not be as wealthy as bill gates, there's some sort of expert tatian of the level of being comfortable. >> babbage's dad that we tend to look at history and what's going on in our country in terms of a moral narrative. we tell stories or breach back and pass them explain how it got to the present. there are clear good guys and bad guys. as for most like a child's

cartoon. i left him a a big is this interest in the people raping and pillaging the environment. and by golly, if we can get the cops in on them, though control them. look at those bad guys. among the tea partiers, it's a very more realistic view is that every group. one thing we should talk about is the role of the poor as being the bad guy. the certain groups of poor who demanded these entitlement programs. yet we saw this in the 47% comments, the sense that the american dream is dying because people have demanded entitlement programs that stop the will to work. we don't want the latter. we want to stay here. who is evil in the tea party of moral narrative? >> actually goes to your point,

the concept you put forth the proportionality, one of their moral foundations, which is actions have consequences that she make good decisions and work hard come you are rewarded and you can make that decision and if you don't work in charge are not rewarded. that for the tea party, especially with the bad guys. think it's debatable who else can be included in that. the bailout for banks, bailout for car companies and assistance to homeowners facing foreclosures, stimulus, all of these things completely infringe on this underlying, moral foundation of proportionality, which essential to what i was talking about, their idea of the american dream from the face in the proportionality is absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to try. and i think that with t.a.r.p. especially in the financial crisis, that was the enemy.

>> gentleman next. >> ron buehler with the madison coalition. i saw in her pulling this enormous frustration with politicians in general in the tea party. and i wonder if anybody on the panel has seen any indication that tea party people and cleaners are interested in the idea of empowering states and making politicians in washington accountable to states, arguably as authors of the constitution intended, if a solution to some of these problems of growing government power and seemingly uncontrollable darling. >> ever that all the time. the question is the interest and evolving issues back to the states. that was a major theme among some tea parties i talked to, but it was also a source of

tension inside the movement because the more traditional servitors don't want to go there. they're worried they'll make us wrong choices and do massachusetts difficult care. so they actually want a top-down, more or less libertarian small government policy. this is an area where i found very little agreement actually. you guys may have her granularity on not though. >> when sort of side issue that is popular in the tea party that speaks to this was a direct election of senators. >> seventeenth amendments. >> one unsurprising pieces of history receipts have more control over his senators were in the past and this was thought of as a potential pants via for many politicians who are kind of restraining from their state interest. so there was certainly a lot of interest about the 17th amendment. >> babbage's follow-on to that appeared during 2010 afterwards, very often, the essence of the

tea party was the constitution. just anyone -- are any of you have comments on it, and returning to it or is that political rhetoric? >> do much for about the declaration of independence. the single most important foundation of the constitution if a compromise for same document. that is that medicine is all about. and hamilton the future and saint of liberal democrats as pop in for a visit. these guys are hostile to compromise amendments to various thompson's hostile to the most important tenant of the constitution. they do believe when i talk to them come a very strong premise is returning government to the people by which they mean bernina closer to us. they see a co-opted by forces. interest groups in washington and in that sense it's not a

popular mehrdad and that is a sense in which a seat closer to the spirit of jefferson's declaration. >> i would add a basic principle of moral psychology is that morality binds and blinds. so she get any movement together, you have a flag that you can salute and circle around the menu to fight on thomas and sacred objects, a history with the golden days and things used to be better. and so, my sense of the constitution and declaration of independence in founding fathers are playing this on the tea party. but the distinction between libertarians and conservatives may be very helpful. conservative moral narratives tend to be stories that decline, but there was this golden age when spirit are both stories tend to be everything was always terrible. for fighting to break free against evil forces appear cherokee. but it strikes me that worshiping the constitution is something conservatives can do.

they would love it in part for looking back when they were nobler, there's no obligation to actually read it. if you're sacralized in something, you don't need to do careful scholarship on and worship the thing actually is. you can worship the idealization of it. on the same thing happens on the left. he worship your idealization of anybody. but i think the constitution and founding documents plans to enroll spirit to think the constitution has a different role for the libertarian tea partiers and conservative tea partiers? >> i completely agree with your assessment right there. i heard two different reasons for why the constitution is so important. as you can imagine, most brought it up on their own, the constitution. i heard two different explanations for why the constitution is so important and one fifth of the conservative

narrative. it is almost more of a cultural thing and that makes it good. but then i heard another narrative, which was more kind of that would explain to me, kind of nuts and bolts more mechanical. the constitution limits the centralized powers can do, which gives individuals more autonomy to do acts in its nuts and bolts rather than the other explanation would be more than is good because it's constitution. and so, i clearly related that at the more nuts and bolts side of it. but when i fatimid stories emerging, i realized it'd correlate quite well with the libertarian half and the conservative half of the tea party. >> gentleman in the middle here.

>> dale johnson, freelance writer. question to the longevity. i don't see this group of people going away. what i see is if the republicans win and demint and grandpa are successful in moving the republicans in the libertarian direction, i could see a lot of tea partiers peeling off and going home to republican party. but if mitt romney wins and moves in a massachusetts direction, where his compromise and in doing a big government conservative some to govern, i see it taking off and especially if democrats win in continuing trillion dollars deficit, that the tea party is just going to grow. so i am not sure in any circumstance and really see a five-year lifespan on it. >> i distinguish between the durability of the sentiment in the individuals in the

durability of the movement as an independent movement. and that as you say does depend to some extent on what republicans do. will be interesting to see if mitt romney is selected if he governs as the mitt romney of the primaries, this group will be fairly pleased. at the very heart of the standards are very high and the compromises to whack him. if he governs as the mitt romney of debate, or attacking george w. bush territory or worse. but the first thing he does is made to compromise, watch out. when i talk to them about this, at least to people in relative leadership roles, david kirby should talk about this, too. but they were very well aware that the republican party wants to co-opt them. and their view is we got suckered before by being co-opted by a party. we are going to stay outside them are going to keep a close eye on them so were always prepared to whack them.

that's what they said.

we didn't see the same type of really local level where they tried to take over local level offices. the tea party did this occupy wall street and it died not see the same type of activity. a lot of times you didn't even see it. the fact that ted cruz out of texas one the republican nomination is because of the local tea party groups that mobilized at the very local level and at the micro level below the radar. even polls in the state of texas showed his opponent david dewhurst was leading in the polls and ted cruz swept and one reason was because those institutions that have been created that were durable however those institutions had not been set up in other places which they have and i don't know exactly where they have and where they haven't led where they have and i would expect to see a waning of tea party

activity. even if people aren't organizing that doesn't mean it isn't there. this question about are you a supporter of the tea party movement is almost similar to our u.s. supporter of the occupy wall street movement? it's a way for people to identify a unique set of views that we don't get why just saying are you a republican or democrat or a liberal or libertarian or whatever. i think that will still seem to be -- >> emily has already answered in part one of the questions we received from an at-home viewers via twitter. the differences and similarities between tea party activists in the occupy movement. the question in the notes that both groups distressed current political systems and that puts us at john's territory. anyone else who has a comment about the solmonese? >> i will start. emily and i visited occupy together a year ago.

and in terms of the moral foundations that i presented, the two groups are extremely different. they are both populist groups and they are both skeptical and critical of crony capitalism. they could make common cause on a number of substantive issues but their styles could not be more different and i think the clearest way to say it is the three more foundations that are about binding groups together with loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity and purity, those are the three of of the social conservatives have with oatka libertarians and liberals do not. and what this means is that when a group is under that tour -- threat there under attack, circle the weapons, 01 for all in all for one hang in there and fight the mob. i think the tea party has that. social conservatives of the tea party have those virtues and those moral foundations. they are so into hierarchical and they are also so opposed to

group loyalty and boundaries exclusion that tends to be focused on inclusion so if you're not going to discriminate them keep some people out and keep some people and i'm not going to have authority and structure in the try to have leveled -- they are opposed to the word hierarchy and into horizontal structures. they don't work very well. the discussions that we saw, a lot of them devolve into arguments about procedure and people speaking out of turn. it's just very hard. you don't have some sense of authority and discipline so i think these two structures are extremely different and as emily said the occupy folks had a lot more trouble creating durable structures that could then move the movement out of discussion out into the world. >> it was very similar in terms of the fundamental moral narrative i think which is that you have got the portion of

america that is perverting and correcting the country and they obviously disagree about what that is. tea partier say its government and occupy wall street says it's unbridled capitalism but there is a similarity in the populist narrative. a very important difference which obviously politicians are very aware of is the tea party is distinguished by having very early made a strategic decision to narrow their focus. they know what they want and they know what they don't want. occupy got together and they still don't know what they want and in politics you don't get what you want if you don't know what you want. >> one final question from home and david might have the data that goes with this. the listener would like to know via twitter with the tea party is more libertarian and if so why have they changed? >> i think it shows emily and i

took 12 polls between 2010 and 2012 and try to see what percentage of libertarians -- each one of those polls and we averaged out a trend and what you found is the tea party starting in 2010 at the highest percentage of libertarians were part of it was 50/50 and then overtime in 2011 the decline of 10 or 12 percentage points and started to come back in 2012. in other words a lot of libertarians david was trying to describe got frustrated when other people got involved and immoral tension for not being cooperative with others and they don't like their parents very much. they didn't like these other people getting involved in their things. interestingly they seem to come back in 2012 and maybe this is in part because the ron paul campaign set that up. it started from there and to get

back to its roots bear lake actually think it's an interesting question about longevity. where did these ron paul people go now that ron paul has retired. some of them started in tea party and might have left the tea party and now they are back in and to what extent does that energy continued to get combined with the tea party and maybe make the brand bigger or broader than the tea party that includes all three ron paul tea partier social conservatives and a big mash-up or what? it's an open question on exactly how it goes. the one interesting side point i didn't mention is a lot of scholars will look at the tea party and say it's conservative but one interesting application is the trend at its low point is that if you pick 2011 is the time he studied the tea party might actually be studying at a low point in libertarian participation and you might be fooled into thinking it's a very conservative leaning group because that is what the data

shows but but in fact if you look at the whole trend from the very beginning all the way through 2012 you see quite clearly the ebb and flow. >> on that note i would like to thank everyone for coming and i would like to thank our authors, david and emily for their very fine work they put into this and i would like to thank the two johns for being the commentators today and i would like to invite everyone to the lobby level for a reception and if you are looking for a restroom they are on the second floor. thank you very much for coming. [applause]

>> it starts as an economic argument. men are just having a hard time adapting to the economy and women are accepting more easily. i can tell you why. there are times in history where men have adapted in history but it the economy is fast-changing and who knows what it's going to throw at us. women seem to be getting those skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men are.

and they seem to be more nimble and that filters down into our society. in the book i talk about how that changes marriage and their notions of fatherhood and what men can and can do can't do in the families and how young people have and make decisions and so you really start to see it having an influence in our culture. a debate between the candidates for governor of indiana. republican congressman mike pence and democrat john gregg in libertarian candidate rupert bonham a contestant from the reality show survivor. this is courtesy of lakeshore pbs.

good evening from the tabaar low center and the university of notre dame tank you for joining us. tonight the indiana debate commission brings to you the second of three debates among the candidates for governor of the state of indiana. i am john ketzenberger and i'm your moderator tonight. for the next hour the candidates will answer questions from who is your voters. they will also take a page from historic lincoln-douglass debates and respond to each other during the second segment. tonight's broadcast is being carried throughout the state on radio and television and live web streams. keeping with the indiana debate commission's mission of putting voters first the citizens will last many of the questions tonight. either in person or via e-mailed questions that i will ask most on their behalf. each candidate will have one minute to answer the questions. midway through tonight's program as we did last week we will follow the lincoln-douglass

format that was made famous in 1858. after candidates take part in the lincoln-douglass segment we will return to voter questions. we will end with the final general question for each candidate who has 90 seconds for a closing statement. our first round of questions will feature questions on the fiscal condition on the state of indiana. that describes the format. the candidates have been advised of the rules and let me introduce the candidates to you now as they make their opening statements of one minute. they drew lots for their placement and answering in order and we begin with libertarian rupert boneham. boneham: thank you to the indiana debate commission for hosting this debate. thank you to everyone here in attendance into all of you at home. thank you. i grew up in kokomo, have been for the last 25 plus years living in indianapolis. years ago in 91 i started my

first company, my first nonprofit. i have since created many for-profit and nonprofit for myself and others. i have helped hundreds of people go back to work, give themselves that living, that career that they have wanted for so long. and i am running not as a career politician but as a small-business owner, as a community advocate, as that person that wants to stand up and help bring that change. >> moderator: thank you. mr. pence. pence: thank you to the indiana debate commission all of the attendees and to my fellow aspirants for this office for the privilege of being with you all tonight. it's a particular joy to be on the campus of the university of notre dame with the 6-0 fighting irish getting ready to make it

7-0. i checked the bucket list today making my way down to the locker room. it was empty so i wasn't able to give any advice to the team but i lived out a fantasy. i am running for governor of indiana because i love the state and because i have a plan to take indiana from good to great. i think this is no ordinary time in the life of our stay. i think we have made extraordinary progress in the last eight years. it become the fiscal in the of the country with reformed government and we are performed are schools and reformed our workplace but now i think we can build on that in ways that will create good jobs and great schools, safe streets and strong families and i look forward to talking to to you about that plan tonight. >> moderator: thank you mr. pence. mr. gregg. gregg: good evening. ronald ragan said the -- hi i'm from washington and i'm here to help. washington politicians like congressman pence like fancy

slogans but they never get anything done. one thing hoosiers can agree on is -- i'm the only candidate who is made of payroll under the present of the university and i passed a balanced budget for indiana. when i was speaker of the house i cut taxes, increase funding for education and did so in a bipartisan way. as governor i will honor the social issues, focus on creating jobs and together we will make indiana work the hoosier way, not the washington way. >> moderator: thank you moe mr. gregg. now we will begin with or questions in our first question is from robert, 80 by safety code specialist from south bend. you have the first response. >> good evening gentleman. my question is what would each of you do to address estates

retirement fund shortage? rescinded this article said the state would have to fund a billion dollar deficit with tax revenue within the next 10 years if this is not adequately addressed. boneham: robert it's a very important question. when we are dealing with people that are looking at not being able to make any more money and they're living on their retirement and we do not see -- when we come into a program and we are cutting services, cutting retirement benefits. i really have to say, i want to be able to show how we will expose some of our problems, how we will show where the dollars are and decide as a community when we have to do some cutting. i would like to empower those of us who have worked at 30 years to get their retirement and

assured us there. we have to take care of our employees that have been taking care of us. >> moderator: thank you. mr. pence? pence: thank you robert for the question. we need to keep our promises. for the people who have served indiana. are public employees, our teachers and also to those that have warned the uniform. people that run in when others run out. we are going to keep those promises in the good news is because of the fiscal health of our stay, we actually are reporting the largest budget surplus in our state's history and because of sound fiscal management. while we have challenges in our public pensions, they pale in comparison to the challenges of other states and let me just assure you that if i'm chosen as governor the state of indiana were going to make sure we preserve the fiscal health of the state. were going to make sure we keep

our promises to those who have served us so well and so courageously and we are also going to look for opportunities to bring tax relief to every hoosier on the farm and in the city. i think we can do all of that together. >> moderator: mr. gregg. gregg: thank you for the question. while the people of indiana talk about our budget surplus as you correctly pointed out we over -- all over $1.5 billion but we also have $1.5 billion owed -- we have allotted dead and the truth of the matter is we really don't know how much money we do have. we have to honor those and see to it that those who have forked and paid into the retirement fund that the result and we will but we have to continue whittling back down and we do that by growing the economy, by focusing in areas where we have got growth opportunity to create jobs in the bag, advanced

manufacturing, logistics, life sciences and energy and if we focus on growing our economy than we will be able to see additional funds come in for we can put additional funds to the debt we have an indiana and the funds will be solvent and that is a priority. >> moderator: thank you mr. gregg. we have heard what everybody's thoughts are the first time around will give 30 seconds for rebuttal. boneham: standing up assisting in making sure state employees are taking care of. when i see an administration that does not look at cutting the administration but looks at cutting benefits, we have to look at where our dollars are. i want to make sure that any state employee that deserves that retirement it deserves what we promised guess what we promised. >> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. mr. pence. pence: thank you john.

but may begin the debate by agreeing with speaker. gregg: on his last point. i truly believe the pathway forward and facing the challenge of our public pension is growth. that is why the centerpiece of my roadmap is a plan to strengthen our budget reserves, keep our balance sheet strong but then also to cut taxes across-the-board for every every hoosier in the city and on the farm. when we lower the personal income tax by 10% we will lower taxes on almost 90% of our business enterprises. john is right about that. growth is the engine. >> moderator: mr. gregg? gregg: this is where experience matters and this is why i'm probably the only candidate who is has balance indiana's budget and balanced it bipartisan. as i have cut taxes and interest in the state's budget. understand state agents and this is important in understanding as we move forward at this critical time. if we work together to build a

consensus, we can do that. i'm the only one with a record of bipartisan proven results. >> moderator: thank you matt mr. gregg. now we will go to our second question and our questioner is elizabeth. she's an associate professor of political science at indiana university self then. our first response will be from mr. pence. >> thank you. in 2010 governor daniels cut spending in order to balance the budget. higher education took a 150 million-dollar hit. where does state support for higher education rank on your list of spending priorities? is such funding a necessary investment in indiana's future? pence: thank you for the question and thank you for your work in the classroom. i've got a couple of kids in college and i know how hard your job is. let me say, including all of our

private colleges and the university of notre dame, public universities are an enormous asset to the state of indiana and they need to be supported but i want to suggest to you professor and those that are looking on i think it's importantly focus on making college more affordable. the reality is that the sum one third of our kids go to public universities in indiana finished a four-degree in four years. the university of notre dame about 90% of the students the start here on this campus will finish a four year degree in four years. that is putting a tremendous burden on our kids in most cases on student loan and death and frankly it is resulting in a burden on our universities as well. i think we have proposed the series in my plan to encourage our public universities to get our kids on a four year track to help them finish on time and higher funding formula to higher education to that on-time completion. >> moderator: thank you mr. pence. mr. gregg.

gregg: i had the pleasure of serving as the president in 2003 in 2004 and i know how important education is. on the first person my family to have a college education. our budget in indiana when we talk about a proposed surplus, gave $600 million in cuts for k-12 and $300 million to our universities. we didn't grow our economy and create a surplus. we cut spending and we cut public education and our universities. all the jobs in the world don't mean anything unless we have a well-educated and well-trained workforce. that is why i have proposed a prekindergarten program. that is why every dollar that we put in prekindergarten will save us $7 in the future we need to make hell grants available for colleges. my opponent congressman pence talks about affordability and congress that voted against the pell grant. >> moderator: thank you

mr. gregg. mr. boneham. boneham: my father taught for 20 years and my mother was a teacher. i've been a teacher of life for years. figuring out how we can make school more affordable without without -- figuring out how we can streamline our state schools, how we can make sure that any of our students in indiana better able to go and pass the entrance tests test can go through indiana and afford it. able to bring into our high schools some of our first-year college classes that we don't have so many students taking those remedial classes when they are in their first year. and i want to be able to work with our colleges and our state to bring a more streamlined system, to bring that 21st

century and be able to use the internet, and to use what we have to just help cut the dollars. >> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. mr. pence a 30-second rebuttal. pence: these are tough budget times and we stand out across the country but now we have a record budget surplus and we have made choices that remember support for higher education doesn't just have to come from taxpayers. and from tuition. i've got a proposal to make greater collaboration happen between the private sector particularly the area of life sciences and great research universities like university of notre dame, purdue and indiana university. is what they been doing at m.i.t. and out of stanford and i think folks here at the university of notre dame would like to keep on beating stanford only can do that by creating an applied research enterprise. >> moderator: thank you mr. pence. mr. gregg? gregg: we need to hold the line

and focus on creating jobs not on social issues and we need to grow the middle class. we need to realize we don't know how much money we have an indianapolis in indianapolis due to accounting errors we only found $500 million in the past year and if we are going to make all of these great things i collaboration between the parties possible congressman today that you have got to show up every day. you can't have that missing 86% of your vote if you're going to be governor. you've got to work every day. >> moderator: thank you matt mr. gregg. mr. boneham. boneham: i want to say also the budget cuts were not because of shortcomings on our dollars. they were because we have misplaced dollars and we need to find them again. what we are talking about with our tax collection is collecting our texas at an accounting level, we would not have those misplaced dollars any more. we would not have that

600 million-dollar problem and touching catching -- cutting budgets and have the money still in the bank. >> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. our next question will be directed to mr. gregg and i was a question. we received numerous questions about the interstate 69 project from that built-in indianapolis indicating strong voter interest in this project. all preview told the indianapolis star that you were in favor of completing the project and according to the star of the state has no money left to pay for the $1.1 billion segment from bloomington to indianapolis. where would you find the money to build that leg and complete the project? mr. gregg? gregg: absolutely. i've a plan for roads, bridges, rail maritime ports and air time -- not airports. there is no such thing as a maritime port. we take existing funds that the state of indiana has and we leverage those and raise $3.5 million putting the federal

highway safety administration will create 97,000 paying jobs. perdue, architects from ball state. when we do that we won't be selling any assets. we won't be touching the state surplus and we will finish i 69 but also u.s. 31 and also the hoosier heart. we have got a plan in this plan is a long-term solution to a problem we in indiana have been given a chance we will create 97,000 jobs and raise $3.5 million without touching the state surplus. >> moderator: thank you mr. gregg. our next response will be from mr. boneham. boneham: the i 69 corridor. this is one of many reasons why i i'm running for governor. the money was already set aside. the president was set up in the budget was that. we started doing the project and where did the money go?

we weren't able to finish the project. coming into bloomington on 69 square if we and it there and dumped everything onto 37, 37 is going to struggle. being able to come up with the sensible, the common sense to solving our problems. we need to look at where the dollars went. let shine a light on the administration of the i 69 corridor. let's see where the dollars have gone. that will help us in our future when we are creating and finishing i 69 with the dollars we are going to have to generate. we will spend them wisely. >> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. mr. pence? pence: i have supported finishing i 69 to indianapolis for about 20 years and i do believe the governor's leadership in this has been historic. we are going to finish the job. were also going to finish 31

from indianapolis to south bend and we are going to get those bridges. here's how we are going to do it, folks. first and foremost we are going to fight hard with the folks in washington d.c. to make sure indiana gets her dollars pass. working in a bipartisan way with republicans and democrats to get a highway done to bring more dollars back to indiana in terms of our tax dollars and going to washington d.c. and i'm proud of it. but that is not all the answer. we also have to fight to get more control over the federal dollars that come back. you know there are real incidents by sending more than 18 cents to washington d.c. they have 20% of the cost. if we go to washington d.c. and say let us have those tax dollars we will have a hundred million dollars a year to spend. if we can do this and being innovative and committed. >> moderator: thank you

matt -- thank you mr. pence. we are going to begin a new segment right now in that segment is a modern update of the tradition of the lincoln-douglass debate. if our candidates stayed true to the spirit of this -- beg your pardon? gregg: i need a rebuttal. >> moderator: we did not have any rebuttals for any one. i will stay out of the way and let them talk but maybe we won't be old to do that. each candidate gets to make a statement and the other two can rebut that statement and the one who made the original statement gets the opportunity to bring the subject to a close and then move onto the next opening statement. we began with mr. boneham, your one minute opening statement. boneham: we just had, and it seemed so timely, i brought this up in the last debate. we just had a report coming out where the state correctional facilities are near capacity. and we have stalled in the

legislation trying to figure out what we are going to do, how we are going to solve this problem without going bankrupt. we cannot keep putting everyone in jail. yes i believe when you break the law you should be punished. when you hurt someone, of course she should be punished. i have worked at protecting this for years. in the re-entry program that is what we do, teach young and men and women have a sense of worth. we need to create in our detention centers the solution for our exploding population in the detention centers and not just putting them out on the streets. >> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. mr. pence two minutes. pence: thank you john and i want to commend you for raising this issue in this governors debate and committee for the work you

have done on behalf of the youth in central indiana. the guy went from a national television show and has -- and i find that very moving and i'm very impressed that you have raised this issue. in my years of public service over the last 12 years i have worked with leaders in both parties to try and address the crisis of recidivism. our capital city will have 4000 inmates returned to prison in indianapolis this year and 50's person will be back in jail. i believe two things about this. if i'm elected governor i want indiana to be the worst place to commit a serious crime and indiana to be the best place in america after you have done your times to get a second chance to actually pursue an honest living and that is being interrupted right now and as a result of

that we see the cycle of criminality that happened. every person is responsible for the choices that they make and is rupert just said people need to be held accountable for decisions that they make. but i do believe that the next administration can build on the alternative incarceration programs that we began indiana's prison but also work with businesses small and large around the state of indiana to say how can you partner with us and faith-based organizations and charitable positions to give men and women coming out of bad choices, coming out of time in prison a pathway to lead honest and productive lives in our community? >> moderator: thank you back -- thank you mr. pence. gregg: i love the state and this is an important election and there is a lot of debate. we say that about every election but this so important because there is a real contrast between

those running for office. rupert i appreciate what you said. like most hoosiers i believe like all hoosiers really we all believe people ought to be safe in their homes and that to be safe in school and in the act to be safe in their workplace. that is why i'm proud i was endorsed by the indiana fraternal order of the police and when i was in the legislature i supported legislation that was tough on crime. everything from changing and focusing more attention on domestic violence and increasing the penalties on driving while under the influence of alcohol. we also did when i was president at the university we created a program, a four year program to train people for homeland security. this is training law enforcement officials of the next generation honoring investigators, police officers, conservation officers. these folks funneling into a two year program into a four year

program where they will protect and work for us. and we will do this by growing our economy and going back to our roots in hagan taking advantage of that. research and development from all the great universities, working with how we can improve manufacturing and build more products here in indiana as well as how we can take advantage of our geographical location in the state whether it's the south shore that runs this area or whether it's the wabash or ohio river down by me. such opportunity in those areas, life science and energy. we are just getting started indiana but we have got to work together in a bipartisan fashion. i've done that and i can keep doing it. >> moderator: thank you matt meant thank you mr. gregg. one minute to wrap it up. boneham: are we going to continue to lock up every person that breaks the law no matter how petty the law is, no matter

if it's hurting themselves or others? are we going to let our government in indiana build another state facility incarceration center? are we going to take out another struggling economy and put another prison of? i hope not. i don't want to be a state that that -- the economy on incarceration. i want to be a state that actually builds an economy on work and workers business and business owners. when we lock everyone up even for hurting themselves they struggle for the rest of their lives. they are legally discriminated against on housing and employment. i have given hundreds of people that re-entry chance. we have every program out there that the government has created in our program and i can do that for a stay. i want to break that re-entry

detention center and to society back to us. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. boneham. our second round begins with mr. pence. one minute please. pence: when governor mitch daniels took office indiana had a deficit of $800 million owed $700 million to local schools and public universities. in eight short years we have become -- it's really remarkable. we have balanced budgets and cap property taxes and cut business taxes. we ever formed government services. we brought the energy and efficiency to the private sector in many respects and is the government enact a plan to continue to do that. in my roadmap we talk about continuing the same management performance space techniques that the administration has begun strengthening our reserves to restore cause of 12.5% not the usual average of 10 and also

using the additional budget surplus to cut taxes for every hoosier. i would like to hear from my opponents have their plans for tax cuts and spending will square with preserving indiana's fiscal integrity and indiana's fiscal strength? how do we make sure we preserve honestly balanced budgets in the future going forward and preserve the progress that indiana has made. >> moderator: thank you matt. >> moderator: thank you mr. pence. mr. gregg. gregg: they have all been great men in the situation but the truth of the the matters congressman you are standing here talking about the governor inherited 200 million -- and $800 million deficit. you were in congress and you voted five times to increase the deficit up to a total of $200 billion. your roadmap slogan i love that in indiana we pay as we go and that is not the washington d.c.

way. you have talked about cutting taxes clean across-the-board that you have never said how you are going to pay for it. it's got to be paid for congressman, you know that. you just say we are going to cut. that's the washington way, cut now and pay later. we can do that. our constitution requires that her budget be balanced. i balance indiana's budget and i've done in a bipartisan fashion. i know from having been in the legislature we had a billion dollar surplus and after the end of the session and 2011 because of the attack on america in september, 9/11. >> economy shut down and that billion dollars was gone. we can't spend that surplus without a way of replacing it and congressman your way of spend now and worry how to replace it later is not a solution. in a gregg administration when i'm governor of the proposals we have made that i will talk about, we pay as we go. we have got a way to pay for

each and every tax cut that we have proposed. that is the indiana way, and not the washington way. and for those of you that are north of u.s. 40, washington is watching and i know it because that is when i talk. thank you. >> moderator: thank you mr. gregg. mr. boneham. boneham: over the last eight years we have watched her governor who has done a fine jom our trustees in our communities and putting up our into offices in indianapolis. it looks like it would save money but it's adding layers of administration. we need to decentralize our government, close those offices down in indianapolis and put the power back into the community. the way that we grow our states

is by empowering our counties. again, if we had a tax collection for business personal tax at a county level and let the counties take their portion out and push the rest up, the counties would have in their budgets, they would know the exact amount of dollars they have for next year. they would be saving that enters that they pay on borrowing money to create their services and on the other hand they would be collecting interest on the money that they are saving for next year's budget. if we want to strengthen our state, we have to start at the ground level. our counties know what they need. i have been running programs for 20 plus years that have zero administration, that costs $0 to

the public-sector, but just to give back. being able to show what we are doing with enforcement in our program. the way that we save our future and save our budget is by funding from a ground-level and pushing it off. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. boneham. mr. pence. pence: i think my opponents for taking a swing at it but i have got to tell you john, cutting is not the washington way but it's my way. from the time i arrived in washington d.c. i cut spending for both political parties. the president want to grow entitlement and grow the federal government's role in education and send a wall street bailout for $700 billion i live to fight it and i stood for fiscal discipline and reform.

that is why it was called one of the hardest working members of congress. the truth of the matter is facts are stubborn things. five out of six of the years that you your speaker of the house indiana ran a deficit in the tens of millions of dollars and frankly john when i look your plans for more spending and more tax cuts it looks like we are headed down the same path of redding. i think indiana has to per server fiscal integrity and looking for ways to fund the priorities that we need to fund to continue to grow our state into the future. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. pence. now we begin around three with mr. gregg. you have one minute. gregg: thank you john. as governor i will draw my experience from business, education bipartisanship and i will focus on tax cuts. i will work on roads, bridges and rail, include work on early

childhood education. are tax-cut proposal and the way to pay for it is targeted towards indiana headquarters and businesses from the local mom and pop all the way to eli lilly but it also plays applies to those manufactures like chrysler and gm so it frees up capital to create jobs here in indiana. as governor i will be concerned about main street, not wall street. it will allow us to use existing funds and leverage $3.5 billion to create 97,000 good-paying jobs. we are not going to sell any assets, no surplus, it won't be touched and we will finish u.s. 69 31 and as they former president of the university we developed a prekindergarten probe and because every dollar spent now is seven saved in the future. >> moderator: thank you mr. gregg. mr. boneham, two minutes.

boneham: i have also created and run many companies. i have created million-dollar companies and being able to show that when we give that same sense of help to the small businesses that we do the big ones and what i'm talking about is the tax deferment, the giving of corporate dollars one individual, one company over airdrie other company in the community. the fair and level playing field. one when i hope to become governor, we will create a fair and level playing field. every business in indiana full pay the same tax rate, the same business taxes and i'm proposing we take that down to a 3% rate. in indiana in 2007, 84.6% of all

businesses in indiana where small businesses with less than 20 employees. employing 634,000 to 2008 we struggled. if we are going to create some kind of business initiative program lets create that business initiative for the small business, those 20 and under employees. instead of looking at how we give tax abatements to the biggest of the big boys and grow our economy. bringing in the big business and giving a tax dollars away, we show how we start to grow indiana one company, one family one person at a time and we use common sense and we create a fair and level playing field. the reason i'm running for governor is i want to fight for all of us and create that level playing field.

>> moderator: thank you mr. boneham. mr. pence? pence: this is an extraordinarily exciting time in the life of our state. because of leadership we have had in the last eight years. indiana is the that the fiscal and leave the country. if a record budget surplus and we have advanced education reform expanding opportunities for underprivileged kids more generously than any state in the united states and they are just starting to take hold. we have managed to reform our bureaucracy and countless ways. just think about the -- and how much that is change. of course we recognize the right of every hoosier to work under the terms and conditions of their own choosing but i think the opportunity right now is to build on that progress. i think there is a common opinion here between me and my opponent that just keeping indiana on the same path we are on is not good enough. none of us are running just to

keep going but my idea to build an even better indiana on a couple of basic ideas. you preserve the fiscal health of the state. business will grow and invest in indiana if they know indiana is strong. secondly after you've make sure you have enough in the banking of a strong balance sheet then to me it's not about helping the big guys and not about helping the small guys and not about targeted tax cuts. i want to cut taxes across-the-board for every hoosier in the city and on the farm by 10%. when we do that we will do a couple of things. everyone in the state will get a couple hundred dollars in the pockets and $500 million will go from state treasury into the economy. secondly that is the best way to cut taxes on small businesses because most small businesses filed their texts individually and what what we have a 10 temper syntax that here's the best thing come indiana will be the lowest taxed state in the

midwest and with everything else would have going for us wouldn't that be a great thing to put on the billboard facing out straight out to michigan from here and saying come on our way. their jobs and opportunities in indiana. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. pence. mr. boneham you have one minute to wrap this up. gregg: if you are one of the hardest working members of congress having never passed the bill in 12 years and having been a leader in your own party this 86% of your vote, no wonder it's broken. i mean, and i heard you last time when you said you're one of the hardest working. i looked up that article and that is you quoting yourself saying you are one of the hardest working. congressman you have time to rebut that but the truth of matter is than 2006 in 2008 the staff in congress voted you one of the biggest -- and congress. this race is about needing a

workhorse, not a show horse. no more than you show up anymore you wouldn't be a show horse. you would be down to being a one trick pony. >> moderator: thank you mr. gregg. that finishes the lincoln-douglass segment so we will begin by asking questions. pence: can i request time for rebuttal time? >> moderator: if you want to take time during the next section of questions you will be old to do that. pence: i believe i will do that. >> good evening gentleman. as you said i'm a full-time student pursuing a business degree and a single mother of three, divorced and work full-time and i get little to no child support. i'm the sole provider for myself and my children. once i reported the income to mike -- we have a system that seems to punish those who are

trying to help improve themselves and the lives of their families. i do not believe in life on welfare but i too believe in the chance. do you have any ideas for state programs to computer the computer training managing home finances or renovating buildings that would help the transition to punish independence from the state more practical? >> moderator: mr. boneham? boneham: amy thank you and i have to say that i feel your pain. i see every day with the participants in my program starting to go out and go to work. at the same time, this might be a young man or woman that has some disability. this might be that 30-year-old person that cannot take care of themselves 100% so they are on some disability or giving -- getting some government assistance. as they start making money the

government assistance is instantly pulled. we have to create a plan that as our population is empowering themselves, we encourage that. we continue the support of stepping down as they are building their own support. i want to create a welfare to work kind of state for anyone that is on government assistance. you have to have that and. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. boneham. mr. pence. pence: lets you for being a great mom to your kids. my wife karen was raised a good part of her youth by single mom and we have a single mom in our family too. i think one of the encouraging bits of progress of this administration is the governor dean has put a renewed effort into collecting child support and we will have an open door to

all hoosier families but a special place in our heart for single moms and we will work hard to create those transition programs you are talking about and again thank you for your courage. let me speak if i can in the time i have remaining, this business about me never passing a single bill you know that's not true. just because you say it does not make it so. people can go to my web site might pence.com and read to your hearts content about legislation i have authored and enacted. support of jobs in indiana in the life sciences industry in the driving force behind an effort to save some $41 billion in federal spending. and a 95% voting record speaks for itself so enough. negative personal attacks in a campaign. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. pence thank you very much. it as the candidates to please adhere to the time limits we have established ahead of time.

mr. gregg your response? gregg: thank you, thank you very much. congressman in indiana we follow the rules. we don't think because we are an elected official we are -- but lee meese -- let me say something you. one congressman pence was congratulating you he has a program that he wants to focus on families but it's a in mom and dad family. a married couple. i'm a single parent to and i take great offense that his family plan does not consider me and my boys a family. maybe he doesn't think your kids are a family either. that is a road we don't want to go down but the way we help people is creating better paying jobs. these poverty level jobs have to stop in the right to work is not a solution. that will lead to eight, nine and 10-dollar an hour jobs and you cannot strengthen the middle class on that. that is what we have a plan to take advantage of our natural resources and art damages here

in indiana. that is why we have a plan. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. gregg. now we go torn next question. it will be asked by renaldo hernandez, retiree from south end. mr. hannon hernandez? >> thank you. most older adults, of which i am one, who need long-term nursing care at some point in their lives would prefer to receive those services at home instead of in a nursing home and when indiana continues to rank at the bottom of states in terms of public spending for home care services, even health health heh care is less expensive than home care. especially as it concerns the choice program and the granting of medicaid waivers. will you do anything to improve the availability of home care for is an option for older

adults and if so, what and if not, why not? >> moderator: mr. pence? pence: let me say, it's ramon? >> moderator: is renaldo. pence: renaldo, forgive me. thank you for your question let me say it's extremely important we continue to innovate in the delivery of services. is one of the reasons why if i'm elected governor of indiana it is going to meet my hope that we have a new president in the white house and new leadership in the united states senate and we will go to washington d.c. and we will ask for greater control over medicaid. in fact i am very encouraged by the fact the governor romney is calling for block granting medicaid back to the states because one of the things indiana's demonstrated whether it be with their seniors or medicaid recipients is the ability to innovate and now we

also have medicare. i know my opponents are -- obamacare. a 700 million-dollar cut in medicare for seniors. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. pence. mr. gregg? gregg: renaldo thank you. i absolutely support home health care. i was in the legislature with former -- from brazil indiana who said and he came up with this program has a great program and it works because it allows senior citizens or people that sometimes would end up in a nursing home that dignity and the ability to stay in their homes. they give assistance. i yesterday was in gary indiana visiting a lady who lived on porter st.. her name is flaura. she is able to stay in her home because of this program but yet we have cut it and not fully funded it. as governor i will do everything we can to see that program is

fully funded and those waiting lists no longer exists. it's more cost effective and it allows dignity and congressman if you are going to washington to attack the problem what in the devil have you done out there in the last 12 years? >> moderator: thank you very much mr. gregg. mr. boneham. boneham: home health care is very important and that is one thing i've done in my life and in my past. i came back to indianapolis when my adoptive ran parents were getting ready to be taken out of their retirement home and placed in the retirement village or that they did not want to die in a retirement home. they did not want to die without their loved ones and their possessions around them. we created a house in indianapolis, and moved in with them and i help them through the last few months of their lives and in the past in their home. being able to help our state to

see the value in math when we are talking about reducing health care costs. of course we should be encouraging home health care. we need to use some common sense and give our hoosiers that are aging a little bit that dignity to decide where they go. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. boneham. i will ask on behalf of laura bruder and i will ask that you keep your answers to 20 seconds because for time purposes. the question, which will go to mr. gregg first is to you believe the property tax cap legislation put in place by the voter referendum has benefited local government and public schools as well as business? mr. gregg? gregg: i think the property tax system with something that all hoosiers wanted and that is why we passed a constitutional amendment.

i think it has created enormous challenges for our mayors and county officials and for -- so where it is benefited homeowners that has caused a lot of problems for those in the trenches and local government. >> moderator: thank you very much mr. gregg. mr. boneham. boneham: i would like to revisit property tax cap and seeing if we can take that to 1%. yes, there is a shortcoming with leaving the property tax cap but where we are going to show -- >> moderator: thank you very much mr. boneham. mr. pence 20 seconds. ..

and you will faithfully and impartially discharge her duties as governor of indiana to the best of your skills and ability. how can you assure us that she will keep their solemn oath? mr. boneham, you are first. boneham: verse, i want to say i wish i could find the indiana constitution so i could carry it in my pocket the same way i carry the federal constitution. i want to stand up and hold the constitution dear, remind our government that the constitution

is what we are based on. and stand up on our government is creating laws that are unconstitutional. i want to stand up and swear that those two indiana to every citizen in indiana that i will treat every citizen an equal, that we will give every citizen the same right, privileges and benefits. being able to stand here and share that i am not the career politician, and just the business band that is trying to bring some common sense back into our government. bring about ability for us to deal with the cause of our problems. not the symptoms, not to stand up here and argue and fight them not to blame others, but to deal with what is really going on and to actually look at the cost of our problems.

i still have 10 seconds. with the constitution going on -- sorry, you interrupted me. >> moderator: i'm sorry, you took a pause. boneham: to reverend here tonight, thank you very much. please check out rupert boneham.com. >> moderator: thank you very much. your unlike many politicians that you actually took a breath. i do apologize. [applause] >> moderator: mr. pants coming of 90 seconds. pence: i want to thank the indiana debate commission for this wonderful opportunity. i'm a save for a moment or two on the question, i take, other than the up and make to that woman back there 27 years ago, i just take no other oath more seriously than the other type to save this country the last 12

years. and if i'm elected to be the 50th governor of indiana, offering the same vigor to defending, support and upholding the constitution of the united states and constitutional state of indiana. we propose to change the state procurement and federal grants to be the office of state-based initiatives so indiana can leave the fiscal strength and growth to be an effort that says we got to do things the indiana wake and gain more control over federal resources. and i believe that's consistent with their great traditions coming up on 200 years of history. but we had a spirited and memorable debate tonight. that may encourage all of you to look at our roadmap. eminem for governor because i love this day. i'm also running for governor because this is no ordinary time in our state. if we produce the right leaders at every level with an insistent vision to build an even better indiana, i believe indiana will

take our rightful place in philly considering midwest and one of the fastest growing state economies in the united states of america and i'm ready to go to work to do that. i ask for your vote. >> moderator: mr. gray, 90 seconds. gregg: thank you. i upheld indiana's constitution is in the legislature. i upheld the state constitution of the federal constitution and i have done that and i will do that again and there's no doubt in my mind that these individuals would also try to do it. i've got to tell you, i don't have any fancy slogan for willful trying to do. i just got your common sense, but i think it works and it worked in a speaker of the house and they did things in a bipartisan fashion. i know how to bring people together and have always been able to do it. this is a crucial election. there is a stark contrast between the candidates running for governor and indiana. i'm pretty mushy middle-of-the-road guy. a little right of center to most

people in my party. which you know what? i'm running against a person who is a tea party or, is an extremist. and that's the truth of the matter. hoosiers are not extreme people. the tea party agenda is extreme unto those lugar republicans and those independents out there, i am the only person standing between you and to party control about hoosier government. >> moderator: thank you are much, mr. gregg. the final debate is thursday, october 25. the studios of ws debut informing begins at 7:00 p.m. on eastern time. ask again to make sure public television from a staff the departed loved performing arts center and the president of notre dame university, father john jenkins. and the volunteers at the indiana debate commission initially it organizations, thank you, also. good night from notre dame,

indiana.

>> we have come too far to turn back now. the american people have worked too hard in the last thing we can afford to do right now is go back to the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. i cannot allow that to happen. i will not allow that to happen. that's why i'm running for a second term as president of the united states. >> the middle class americans getting crushed on the squeezed because incomes are down. the same time gasoline prices are up, food prices up in the health insurance premiums. it's really tough being middle-class, even if you have a problem, so we're going to go to work to create more jobs and more take-home pay. that is our passion. many distraught americas we can provide for families and for the future of this great country.

>> now come a discussion of serious civil war, which has caused the death of over 30,000 people. foreign policy analysts at the heritage foundation examined russia's role in the conflict and their support of the assad regime. the turkish military recently confiscated russian arms down to board a ceramic commercial airliner. this is an hour and a half. >> we of course welcome those who showed us on all of these occasions, on our heritage.org website as well as those joining us via c-span today and in the future. we would ask of an in-house to make sure your cell phones have been turned off as they prepare to begin for everyone's benefit in the recording of today's program. we will oppose the programs in

24 hours on a heritage website for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion today stuck to her stephen bucci, senior research fellow for direct, security and allison center for foreign policy studies. his focus of special operations in cybersecurity bacillus defense support to to civil authorities. dr. bucci served america with three decades as a special third-best time in special forces. he also became military assistance to defense secretary donald rumsfeld and served throughout secretaries turned. at his retirement, he then continued as assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and security for his. prior to joining us here, he was the lead consultant to ibm on cybersecurity. featuring in welcoming my colleagues, steven bucci. steve? >> we want to welcome everyone here to heritage this morning.

we have a very timely subject to discuss and i think we have a great panel of experts that will be doing the discussing, at least to get us started. i have to tell you i have an interest in us because while the first things i did when i prided heritage was to testify before congress about the weapons of mass destruction are at that syria ended someone untimely demise may pose. and i am very interested to hear the answer to one of the questions i was asked by one of the congressmen, which was, g, couldn't rush a helpless in this regard? and i'll tell you what my answer was. i'm interested to hear what the experts have to say. and we have three of them here. the fourth one is in route and should be here by the time it's his turn to speak. but we are going to start with our panelists.

i'll get about 10 minutes apiece for an initial opening statement. them are going to get to as much q&a as we can do more than give each one of them a minute or two to assure proper. alitalia for those of you have not been panelists have moderated before, when you ask a question, if you get past the second piece of english language and i don't her? , i'm going to stop you. so this is not a time for the audience to give speeches. therefore experts appear to give those. make sure we get as many questions asked and answered as possible. try and keep your question for things, get to the question part of a let the experts address them. now we are ready to start. i'm going to do all the introductions right away and it will just go down the line. the speakers are sitting in the order which they will present. we are going start with dr. jim

phillips, senior research fellow for middle eastern affairs at the heritage foundation. he has written extensively about the middle east and international terrorism since 1978. esa member of the board of editors of middle east quarterly and jim has been interviewed frequently on numerous media outlets and has written for quite a few of the major u.s. newspapers in the area or in his areas of expertise. he is extremely knowledgeable man who has seen things happen and comments on them or in my humble opinion, a very reasonable and accurate way. he'll be followed by dr. robert o. freedman, those professor of political science at baltimore university. and professing political science at johns hopkins university. he has been a consultant to both the u.s. department of state and the central intelligence agency

and he is the author of four books on soviet foreign policy and is also the editor of 14 of israel and middle eastern policy. and then our third speaker will be docked or stephen blank. he is a strategic study institute expert on soviet bloc and post-soviet world since 1989. he is the editor of imperial decline cannot russia's changing position in asia and coeditor of the soviet military in the future. and he will come in the last speaker, my colleague here at heritage of the senior research fellow for russian and eurasian studies. ariel has often been called to testify in russian and formal politics, economics amount before the u.s. congress and rave glory provides commentary

on these issues through numerous media outlets, both domestically and across the globe. so i believe we have the right people here to discuss the topic, which i didn't come up with the title, so i can say is clever and does not feel disingenuous. how russia hopes assad as the u.s. settles. and we'll start with jim phillips. >> thanks, steve. other to set the stage for next three speakers who will focus primarily on russian policy they briefly outlining u.s. policy and how is that dirty to the blood path we see in syria today for more than 30,000 dead and no one inside. from the beginning and it's fair to say it is behind the curve of following events in syria. in part, this is because of the ideological baggage. he carried when it entered office, which led to wishful thinking about the supposed

benefits of engaging the assad regime. and partner think it was a horrible misreading of the nature of the assad regime and the possibility of negotiating a diplomatic transition to a new government. and i think in part a list to an insistence on multilateralism, almost as an end in itself, which comes from u.s. policy and pushed decision-making, which is paralyzed with a lack of consensus on the threat of a russian and chinese veto. the obama administration entered office determined to improve relations with the assad regime and initially soft-pedaled his criticism of the regime's hostile policies, including its violent crackdown on it's in people. it did this despite the deep rooted hostility in the middle

east. its long-standing support of standing, second only to iran. his impeccable hostility and his close alliance with iran and russia before the soviet union. syria supporter groups killing u.s. troops and supported hezbollah, the lebanese terrorist organization, which was possible for the death of many americans in lebanon, including 1883 bombings of the u.s. embassy and marine ericsson beirut. and i can go back to lebanon because it's worth noting that the marine initially had been deployed to separate israel and the plo following the 1982 lebanon war, but they were called back following the assassination of lebanese president-elect, bashir jim i'll come it was assassinated by group. fast-forward to 2005, there was an assassination of another lebanese leader.

former prime minister rafik carteret, who courageously stood up to see her and domination inside lebanon and that led the bush administration to u.s. ambassador, to syria because syria once again have been implicated in the assassination of a lebanese leader. despite the shad regime spotty track record, the administration sought to improve connections with damascus and senator john kerry is our relations. to reduce the bush administration attempt against the assad regime and reverse the decision to withdraw the u.s. ambassador. when the democratic controlled senate.at approving a new u.s. ambassador to syria, simple administration made a name by robert ford while congress was in recess in december 2010.

and although fourth-grader performed ably and demonstrate in solidarity with serious opposition, his peaceful demonstrators could have done that in a different diplomatic position. you necessarily have to be at an ambassador. sending ambassador back to damascus when the assad regime did not modify policies at washington was eager to restore relations despite fears continued role as a spoiler in the middle east and days hinted there will be days. one of the administration's was the hope to draw damascus into peace negotiations with israel. this has been a pattern followed by other administration. the comprehensive arab-israeli

peace is the holy grail of the american presidency and other administrations have pursued that thoughts and u.s. policy on syria in pursuit of an israeli syria peace treaty, particularly the clinton administration bush dispatched secretary of state christopher to damascus, which was more than he went to moscow or beijing. but these and other efforts to broker a searing piece failed because damascus was interested in participating in a peace process, but not in actually signing a peace treaty. it was interested in the process because that would defuse pressure going back in the 90s when it blasted soviet ally in and would allow it to breathe the benefits of participating in a process without paying the cost of signing a peace treaty,

which would jeopardize the claim to leadership, the resistance access as well as expose it to either political vulnerabilities at home, were faced opposition from the muslim brotherhood, which is supposed to peace with israel. in any case, the obama administration failed in syria, just as in iran. in both cases, which will think about trying a hostile regime to a grand bargain or diplomatic supplement about issues proved to be unfounded than these few tangible results. but in an eagerness to negotiate with both regimes pulled its punches and initially muted his criticism of the bloody repression that out to opposition movements and we saw this in iran in june 2009 when the administration took days if not weeks to really toughen its

rhetoric on the suppression of the green movement. when peaceful protest directed in syria in march 2011, the assad regime responded with brute force, including indiscriminate shelling of artillery and tanks and airstrikes. they continue to treat the syrian regimes with glass. secretary of state hillary clinton went so far as to describe charla siders reformer. the march 21st statement was an embarrassing misreading of the situation in syria and although assad to promote reform fund the death of his father with 2000. he sent precious little to deliver on this promise. in july 2011, the assad regime showed contempt by orchestrating a mob attack on u.s. embassy in damascus and these and other threats lead to eventual withdrawal of of the u.s. ambassador. for his own protection.

three rounds of incrementally escalate banking sanctions before president obama finally called for a side to step in 2011. when it became clear that this naïve approach had failed, they outsourced the syria policy to the united nations where russia easily could block effective action. the administration opted to support the non-peace plan which was doomed to fail that was put in place last april. no outside force is capable of imposing peace in syria as long as the power struggle, struggle to the death will intensify between the assad regime and the opposition respond. they provided the illusion of progress resolving serious increasingly bloody conflict, but does little to slow assad's killing machine.

this ludicrously timing initially and this is russia's insistence. initially they were only 40 observers deployed in a country that is bigger than the state of north dakota. this diplomatic charade benefited aside by buying time to crush a rebellion in benefited russia and iran by helping them to salvage a brutal middle east ally. but it took little to protect serious suffering people. and it does not deign to develop the middle east of a major regime that the state-sponsored terrorism. the amount american leadership from the international community often amounts to little more than empty euphemisms in many critical issues for mercy and in syria. russia, china and iran continue to support the assad dictatorship. they prompt resending arms they

advise security forces and repressing the opposition. because horses electronically tracking down and helping the syrian security forces to arrest these opposition leaders. it's training the militia seriously to the besieged in iran, which was instrumental and repressing iran's green movement. in 2009, although we haven't heard the last of the green movement. the obama administration must abandon its wishful thinking about the nature of the assad regime, the effectiveness of the united nations and about the supposed benefits with rashad. if it is to successfully address was going on in safety area, if policy is especially grating when compared to his policy on egypt and that the administration pressed the

mubarak resign in a matter of weeks. despite he was a longtime ally and took the administration five months to issue similar calls for the rest nation of assad. i think that a country that gives reputation for quickly abandoning the trends while courting its enemies will find with enemies unless france. unfortunately, i think this is likely to be one of the lasting legacies of the obama administration in the middle east. >> thanks, jim. >> first of all, i think the heritage foundation, especially for inviting me here. it's a pleasure to be here with jim on that platform. i have only 12 minutes as i was promised and i have a lot to cover, so i'll speak quickly. if there's any questions afterwards, please come up.

at seven parts to the presentation. first, a historical look at both soviet and russian relations wisteria camacho back to 1946 before putin. look at putin's policies in 2005 to 2010, before the arab spring. then look at russia's concern with the arab spring. number four, most importantly, russia's consideration in dealing during the crisis. number five, i do with the cost of russia, which is quite large. number six, try to explain my russia perseveres and seems to be a counterproductive policy and finally draw some conclusions. the russians in relation goes back a long way. in 1946 after syria became independent, it became a major center of soviet diplomatic in the middle east and was the center point for the negotiations between the zionist movement and the soviet union,

leading up to soviet support for the establishment of the state of israel in 1948. following stalin in a series of damascus, syria became a purchaser in soviet arms and seven the u.s. to syria was going communist. the egyptian syrian reunion in 1958 and that those fears. they called nasser egypt leader and a young man for doing it. however, when they broke up in 1961 from a moscow court of damascus and left-wing that they skew in 1866, relations became quite close and you will recall the soviet efforts to preserve the narrowly based syrian baathist regime became one of the causes from the 1967 arab-israeli war. relations were closer in 1870 following the coup to power. russia is a naval installation, supply and maintenance facility

in the two countries signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation. by 1974 committee should begin to move into the u.s. orbit. that is not to say that there are no problems between the two sides western intervention in lebanon in 1975 and 76, clearly this is moscow after the refusal to accept u.n. security council. one of the few arabs states that supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979 and the military aid as a result. the close relationship continued until the advent of gorbachev in 1985 cover to turn off the top of military aid to settle his dispute with israel politically and not by war. showing relationship continued until 2005 when a combination of increasing syrian isolation due to policies in lebanon and jim mentioned a much more aggressive russian foreign policy under

putin reestablish the close russian syrian relationship today. i see it react team to the miss -underscore rescue fiasco and the orange revolution in ukraine at the same time to the middle east because its invasion of iraq which alienated the gulf arab states, especially saudi arabia as well as turkey. in afghanistan, putin went on the offensive and took several steps. first, he tried to improve relations with the states and groups such as iran, syria, hamas and hezbollah as well as turkey. in syria, 9.8 billion debt was forgiven and putin authorized whopping scale. syria in return was one of the few states in the world to support russia and the sensation of georgia in 2008.

the second step occurring 2007 through the u.s. still in disarray, moscow that you try to expand its influence in the rogue states to cultivate the leading sunni arab states such as saudi arabia and in 2008, the arc of activity. putin is close enough for its. number one, demonstrate it was a major power in the middle east and the world. number two, the investment, while selling sophisticated nuclear reactors and billing systems. number three, the cost and difficulty of extracting natural gas grew to gain joint ventures in oil and natural gas extraction in countries like saudi arabia, libya and iraq. and to prevent the arab states are beating the islamic movements, they were began to spread through the rest of russia. keeping a good test this in the alignment of the cynical states,

and the shia group of iran's syria and hezbollah not easy, especially as tensions rose between the two groups. this was to be increasingly clear with the onset of the arab spring. when you look initially had concerns, it could spread to russia were suffered some of the same problems as the year of states. autocratic government, widespread corruption, indeed, some of the democracy demonstrators were shot in the revolutionary train stops at the tradition. next up, moscow. a second concern. they might take over chaos and further inspire islamists and caucuses and increasingly goes on as well. number three, they could be jeopardized as well as arms sales. a number for, when libya occurred, the russians taking took a major blessing. they'd stain on the security council vote on the no-fly zone

in libya. thereby supporting the arab consensus and continuing to widen russian policy. but a boomerang badly as the no-fly zone he came a case of regime change in russia lost the most 4 billion in arms sales and several billion dollars in industrial contracts. now here we come to the main point. why are the russians doing what they're doing in syria? no repeat of that inexperience, we won't permit regime change. number two, syria remains an important country in the middle east. iran, has sought much less now to hamas. i think the russians don't want to alienate iran can a serious main allied such as russia's 2010 sanctions but against this under medvedev. number three, the major market, one has a $5.5 billion

especially air defense. number four, the naval facility had taught us is mostly floating docks in several warehouses, the only facility open to russia in the middle east come important symbolic value and generate the russian fleet visited showing the facts. number five, russia's economic investments in syria totaling almost $20 billion. number six, this is a point, anti-americans. s-sierra is a major anti-american force in the middle east and putin will not this be overthrown. number seven, if islamist takeover can have a very negative the fact. and recently, when islamists attacked u.s. embassies in cairo and tunis announcer ambassador stephen got killed, if you see, we told you if you backed the

revolutions. and finally with street demonstrations in moscow, in the midst of russia's presidential campaign, the same forces at work in russia as in syria and that the u.s. is trying to do a revolution in russia. marcia van in semi-not as each of three security resolutions, including water down once criticizing syria, continues to ship arms, saying there is no human security council resolution. however, sporadically met with syrian opposition leaders and persian and up a dialogue with the assad regime and the support of the allstate kofi annan as jim mentioned, just to prolong the life of the regime. alienating a syrian led states since 2007, especially saudi arabia and peer to come alienating key islamic leaders such as this about cardelli who

called for the boycotting of russia several days ago, russian jets are bombing the syrian people are the arab and islamic people misting against russia. we must boycott pressure and consider russia our number one enemy. number three, andersen alienates the united states in number four, increasingly alienate turkey's airgun regime is in backing the rebels. now, why is russia doing this? discontinued the ranks and rebels. there's another chance they say to reunify. hopefully moscow may think they will help aside. they have not at least been willing to hide into a searing rhetoric. however, everyone is quite headstrong if he continues to be the in the influx of refugees coming in may take action. this is why he's following the shelling and turkish were seen down for damascus, he required

the situation by increasing supply of natural gas to turkey, making up for shortfalls from iran to maintain good relations. between russia and turkey despite what's happening in syria. conclusion, moscow is taken a major middle east gamble with this policy in syria. if the gamble fails, and i think it well, hopefully it's a little more active in the process. moscow's middle east policy will be in deep trouble. thank you. >> i want to thank ariel and the heritage foundation for inviting me. it's great to be back associate with some old friends. after saying my remarks do not reflect the views of the army at the defense department and i'm going to talk about russian mothers building on the pot just said. they can be added to that

discussion. they drive russian foreign policy, or simultaneously implicated in the policy. you can't just have one string of setbacks for decisive factor here in the policy, making process in russia. they were altogether. but we've reserved in the last several years, we see an increasingly narrowing of the policy process in russia. fewer and fewer people actually in a key position to make policy in general, not just foreign policy and putin rarely listens to a large circle of people. instead, he gets it from a restricted circle. he's not the way the database and as a result if you have the misfortune to spend your life reading the russian media, which he sees mr. putin is in what may be called an echo chamber of

paranoias respecting each other's paranoia and feeding upon and sending it out. so the russian elite that the country is under siege, and i use that term, from a western effort to undermine the stability of the russian government and replace it even and that the allies, russian democrats feeds into this. and that's the first point. as a matter of fact in thousand six, they wrote an essay in "the wall street journal" making clear democracy is the greatest threat and still is. there is a profound fear on the part of the government of any manifestation of autonomous political population -- participation by the public in russia or elsewhere. as bob pointed out, the middle east is an example that could spread to russia. despised russia they are quite alarmed or were quite alarmed in

central asia and manifestation of this kind and they were told to do more. there were quite worried about this and give advice. at the time the president flew down to work out a strategy with the uzbek government, with any manifestation of the central asian. the first motive is a profound believe is the russian government is under threat from democracy and that democracy is essentially a western invention and that the enemy at home is the enemy abroad. in other words, we still say that government is addicted to the old threat paradigm. 20 years after the cold war, even as the philosophy and ideology, the government in moscow believes that the internal and external enemy have a common goal through the mechanism of democracy promotion

in the revolution. many people cannot believe the resolution of the arab countries are passed because there will experience of politics is the revolution for provocations and cited by somebody with something regained from it and inject paranoia into the system. thus the first motive. second, there is a widespread apprehension among numbers of the rational beat and the analytical faculties that any revolution movement in the muslim world generally including central asia is going to lead to germanic spirit they could say i told you so. they have been said it hasn't happened even though the islamic party prevailed in the elections fair. the islamic political assertion

is io acts of terrorists. they can't see it in any other way and in fact they have brought this upon themselves, which is out of control and as bob mentioned his son spreading through the russian side. in tripoli and benghazi and damascus is not if the authoritarian dictators fall, the only thing coming out to resist the islamic fanatic terrorist threat, which will have russian muslims fighting in syria, whether the foreign government is supporting in the caucuses, we may never know who foreign governments are. nonetheless, you might think there is an international security to produce and they do believe this stuff.

therefore, if the site goes naturally, it will go in syria. third, anti-americans -- anti-americanism is a fundamental spring about russian foreign policy. not just theory. two things have to be mentioned here. when as i mentioned is the belief as they see themselves undersea should the u.s. and democracy promotion in general. you see the u.s. carried out a strategy for information weapons, warfare, et cetera, links to be ngos, troponin legislation we've seen and links that the demonstrators and ongoing stream. today they just had one of the leaders of the opposition. this is part of their worldview. geopolitically as well, russia must be a great power in the middle east, which by the way they still see as an area close to their borders as if 1991

never happened. their objective in the middle east is to prevent the united states from having a further hand to consolidate a geopolitical order in the middle east. that is one of the fundamental reasons behind their support to rebrand. there are others such as the caucuses if russia was antagonistic. the rain and exports to iran would undermine russia's economic and geopolitical weapon and so on. nonetheless, it is essential to russian geopolitical thinking that russia must play a role in the middle east and cannot allow the middle east to be rendered for a peaceful, strictly by efforts alone. a continuation of tension, arms sales, running guns come a program to run guns in a rental to test me but it was exposed. guns and weapons are we've just

seen again in syria at the diplomacy in cyprus against turkey. other similar examples show that russia will play a great powerful through the available consolidating and they see the united states is doing so, are attempting to do so than by the unilateral resort, the force bypassing the u.n. and they must be observed because after all it's still the game in town to god that the veto power. they want to disregard the u.n. and make a mockery. as we all know, mr. putin admitted to what was planned in advance and article li on the right to protect. so the u.n. is a façade for them, but which they pursued their main political object is the squelching democracy and blocking the promotion of u.s. interest in power abroad.

as i mentioned, d.c. the u.s. promotion of democracy, as a singularly uninformed because protected wars in the middle east created international crisis. they will tell you that they be as out of control, though it doesn't approach it's one of the cox besides the attack in the american consulate and benghazi last month. they also tell you that a façade. they also tell you that a façade. they also tell you that a façade islamists will take over and therefore the united states really doesn't know what it's doing and therefore i sighed and syrian opponents of his regime have to negotiate. they'll never want them to leave because the new government would be anti-russian. anti-russian government in syria

marginalizes russia in the middle east and renders the pursuit of his geopolitical object to quite questionable. they are not going to be particularly pro-shiites in lebanon at the end of the russian weapons and hezbollah, which is a large-scale operation going back at least six or seven years. israel is discovered weapons of 2006 the first russians to admit somehow. the fact is they went through syria and russians knew full well the end-users of this. the fourth reason none they also believe the united states doesn't know it's playing with fire. finally, fifth reason. they have substantial, but not nearly substantial energy interests in syria and even our on sales. the only place where they could recheck our and administering and in the navy clearly wants to do this and has been pitching

for the opportunity to do so. there was diplomacy in syria by sending the fleet there twice. and arms sales. arms sales and russian foreign policy are just a question of selling weapons to friendly states. they are clearly an attempt to create a block of influence for the russian government within the area and within the middle east, the latest being a $4.2 billion arms sale that was announced to iraq about a week or 10 days ago. if iran manages to satisfy russian apprehensions with regard to the iaea, i would not be surprised if the weapons go back to iran. they're trying to sell to everybody else in the middle east. and this is part of the larger strategy of asymmetric support of anti-american movements in the middle east in order to keep russia in the game is a great power. therefore, we have the important

domestic lobbies that have a stake in the perpetuation of the assad regime in more than a comma as many of you know and i've written about this arms sales in russia on one of those mechanisms because the whole sector by which slush funds are provided to top government officials for black operations, whether at home or abroad. and if they were to lose another $4 billion market, which is but they lost in libya and that they could lose in syria, that would put a dent in the draft going to the top of the regime. we must never forget what were dealing with here in foreign affairs is a criminal as regime. if you've read wikileaks, it's all over the place. if you've read the books by luke harding and at lucas and talk to foreign diplomats will tell you it behaves in tanks at the mafia state and one of the principles of a mafia state is to support your friends when they're in trouble.

and aside is a good friend for a mafia state. thank you. >> thank you very much. saturday, which i took it home? >> at home to connect with u.s. policy. there are different opinions in the analytic community about why russia is adamant about this sort of the charlotte side. and of course it isn't historic regime. it is a regime that goes back to the 60s and even the 50s. russia got along famously well with baath regimes in syria that was not that different. the quite secular arab in sometime regimes. they were anti-american and with the leader of russia seen is the

greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. , clearly having an anti-american regime. sounds bad about iran and the radiant dimension we didn't discuss in great detail here is an important dimension. iran is the strongest middle eastern, albeit not an arab country, but strongest anti-american middle eastern country has a relationship that goes back towards the gorbachev era, when the late ayatollah how many famously sent a letter to gorbachev instead, mr. gorbachev, he said, the wall fell. you're ideologically collapsed and i should all convert to islam. and there is a memoir and protocol for the meeting, were gorbachev mentioned that indigo

is hot, hot, hot. nevertheless, rafsanjani, later the president, then the foreign minister to moscow science first arms transactions with russia. russia sold weapons but vote their friends in iraq and to their friends in iran, fell just good about it. and later on, there is a massive channel of nuclear expertise. hundreds of scientists and engineers, hundreds of iranian scientists and engineers are being trained in russia. unfortunately, many. iran is extremely important that battering iran against american interests and by implication the

sunni arab allies of the united states as well as against israel is seen as a liberal state to america's great sea. so i syria is the principle ally of iran and eastern mediterranean and not part of the middle east. undermining syria and giving iran a bloody nose is of course is a major priority, both for the sunni arabs and for the westerns. therefore, russia has to support his theory and allies. and support it does, including supply of weapons of different kinds, refurbishing of attack helicopters, providing as we saw with the aircraft i was forced to land in ankara as mr. laffer

outcome of the russian foreign minister himself at the jewel used cars. well, you his powers to protect syria from the turkish aircraft, one of which will shut down and you use it not only to conduct civil entrapment. the prominent observer of russian foreign policy come in ahead of the moscow office of carnegie endowment said that it's not only about geopolitics. it's also about geopolitics. the college did a great job. there's another point in my techie and that is also used as anchorage and supply base. and by the way, i published a list of russian aspiration and priorities, it hurting before gadhafi went, they were thinking

about renewing the anchorage in libya. they're even thinking thinking about going back to the socorro island, the entrance to the red sea from the south of the island was indeed a soviet -- important soviet naval base during the cold war. so those aspirations of the russian navy are no, are still there, probably take them with a grain of salt because if you look for that taxi fleet, the last ship was commissioned and was introduced into service in 1992 and the black sea fleet is not in great shape. so there's a lot of work to be done there. in any event, today they're saying it's not only about geopolitics, not only about arms sales, and it's about respect. and i don't want to go over the

mafia metaphor that steve just it, but indeed, not just mafiosi, but the real power sometimes crave respect. it is about who makes decisions. if the condition about the use of force in syria is made without russia or against russian opposition, putin will look at it in a very creative way, just as he and his allies at the time comes chichi rock looked at our decision to use force in iraq in 2003 and before that, for those who track the russian affairs back then, in 1999 i believe, mr. prima called the then prime minister turned the plane around the up and take the bombing of serbia started and went back because russia was not appropriately consulted over

the use of force against volusia , let alone getting russian agreement in the u.n. security council. so the issues of sovereignty, the issues of use of force come to the of agreement, how you use force or extremely important, not just for russia, but also for china. in the three fetuses does not just russia, but also china who opposed any kind of resolution that may have led to the use of force against the assad regime and my colleagues mentioned the russian abstained. that was very important because it was a rare. the databus a president, putin as prime minister.

russia should be on the same bandwagon with the last. i don't know if the arab sunni sensitivities were on his mind. and putin said now, this is -- to use the word crusade, western crusade against gadhafi. and we russia should not support it. since we had this weird, tandem, the separation of the line of work and which of course vendettas played second fiddle. in that particular decision he prevailed. there was a public rancor about the decision. i personally think that medvedev was right for a change because if they did with libya but they're now doing in syria, and my presentation, they would pay

a very high price in the muslim world. by not just standing idly by, but actually aiding and abetting murder of unarmed people in muslim societies. and here we go to the very important statement, the leading muslim brotherhood ideologue, my college fester mentioned. and when i saw it, it's a good read and reread what the sheikh said because the sheikh commands the loyalty of thousands and thousands of islamists and we all know he was no friend of the united states. he justified killing of american soldiers in iraq.